Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Classical dispersion relations are derived from a time-asymmetric constraint. I argue that the standard causal interpretation of this constraint plays a scientifically legitimate role in dispersion theory, and hence provides a counterexample to the causal skepticism advanced by John Norton and others. Norton ([2009]) argues that the causal interpretation of the time-asymmetric constraint is an empty honorific and that the constraint can be motivated by purely non-causal considerations. In this paper I respond to Norton's criticisms and argue that Norton's skepticism derives its force partly by holding causal principles to a standard too high to be met by other scientifically legitimate constraints. 1. Introduction 2. Non-causal Foundations? 3. Other Grounds for Skepticism 4.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Mathias Frisch (2009) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: